Saturday, 2 May 2015

Who Owns Australia?

A few months ago I bought a small booklet from the 1930's entitled "Who owns Australia?", it is a work of the Left, back when they were seriously interested in economics. It lists company after company and how much money they made in Australia. Its an interesting historical document. But that's not what I mean when I ask the question, who owns Australia?

No company thinks that it owns Australia, not even business believes in owns Australia, they may expect things but they do not claim ownership. But there is an organisation that does believe that it owns Australia and that is the Australian Government. That it is the supreme authority. However there are problems with that idea and that problem can be summed up in a short phrase, the Australian people.

The Australian people own Australia, not the Australian Government and here's why. Government, all Government, is a state of trusteeship. Its role is to keep the country running, to reconcile the past, the present and the future and to guarantee to the best of its ability that the country has a future. To protect it and to provide the authority to serve the Nation.

What got me to ask the question was not the book I mentioned, as I had asked the question before I saw the book, in fact thats one of the reasons I bought the book. But because of immigration. I read an article by Peter Brimelow, the editor of http://www.vdare.com/ and in one post he wrote that both the American Democratic and Republican Parties were Parties of treason. And I instantly knew he was right. I had not thought that way before, but now I do. Of course his criticize is just as true around the Western world, including Australia. Our Liberal and Labor parties are also Parties of treason.

Now some people will say thats ridiculous, immigration has always been a part of Australia's history. True, up to a point, immigration was predominately from Britain, to Australia, in other words from one British country to another British country. There were exceptions but thats what they remained exceptions. But then it was decided to allow non-British people to immigrate to Australia in large numbers. To change the ethnic composition of the Nation. But what right does a mere political party have to do such a thing?

It can do such a thing if it believes that it, through forming the Government, owns Australia. But it breaks the covenant between the Government and the people, between the Nation and the State. The Parliament of Australia is the supreme law making authority within Australia. Except when the Constitution is involved, then only the Australian people have the authority to change it. But the ethnic composition is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor has Parliament ever really addressed the issue. It has simply changed immigration laws and the number of immigrates at its own discretion. But the Government exists not to create its own reality, to change things about as it sees fit. It must at all times be loyal to the people, the Nation. Immigration of non-British people into Australia was not loyal and the political parties know this because they have never allowed the issue to be put to a Plebiscite or a Referendum. Never has an election been fought over the issue because both major parties support mass immigration.

They continue to act as if they own Australia, but they do not, nor does the Parliament have the right to change the composition of the Nation. It does not have the right to change the ethnic, racial or religious composition of the Nation. The Parties of Treason need to be stopped before there is no Nation!

It is difficult for us to admit at times that "we have met the enemy and he is us". When it comes to the political parties, it's not just the elites and donor class that are the problem. The voters ultimately return them to office.

In FPTP countries, there is at least an excuse for voting for a milquetoast Cameron over a lunatic Labour-SNP government. Australia and New Zealand have proportional representation, but there isn't a traditionalist-populist party in either nation's parliament.*

The left has fulfilled its goal of "dissolving the people and electing another", despite the problems of liberal society, it doesn't appear that the people want change. If anything they want more multiculturalism.

The problem begins with the people, we deserve what we got, and we must go from here.

The problem is that people think that they really are voting between two very different choices, but sadly they are always voting either Left Liberal or Right Liberal. Who's going to tell them otherwise, the media, the Government or the political parties?

I do not agree for one minute that most people want more multiculturalism, some do, but most do not. What they want is to live in a civilized society and that is used against them.

Let me explain proportional representation. In the last Australian election there were about 10 different candidates for me to vote for. The party I put sixth ended up with my vote, because non of the others had enough votes so the votes continue until they reside with either the First or Second largest party and then thats where they stay.

There needs to be a real Conservative movement and party, but neither exist. They need to be created, here and everywhere else. To say people don't want it is simply untrue, the truth is that people have not had the ability to vote for a genuine Conservative party. There are many reasons for that but it is not the peoples fault they are the victims.

Both the DLP and Winston Peters are ethnic parties as well as Conservative parties. The DLP was formed by Catholics who believed that the Australian Labor Party wasn't anti-Communist enough. But it has remained a mainly Catholic party. Winston Peters is Maori and so is a large portion of his party. Thats not to say they are not Conservative, it is to say that that is not always the most important thing.